The "Middle East and Terrorism" Blog was created in order to supply information about the implication of Arab countries and Iran in terrorism all over the world. Most of the articles in the blog are the result of objective scientific research or articles written by senior journalists.

From the Ethics of the Fathers: "He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say, it is not incumbent upon you to complete the task, but you are not exempt from undertaking it."

"I just came from a meeting of the Israeli cabinet. We discussed the proposed framework for a deal with Iran.

The cabinet is united in strongly opposing the proposed deal.

This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the State of Israel.

The
deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not
destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran's
advanced centrifuges.

On
the contrary. The deal would legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program.
It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. A vast nuclear
infrastructure remains in place.

The
deal would lift sanctions almost immediately and this at the very time
that Iran is stepping up its aggression and terror in the region and
beyond the region.

In
a few years, the deal would remove the restrictions on Iran's nuclear
program, enabling Iran to have a massive enrichment capacity that it
could use to produce many nuclear bombs within a matter of months.

The
deal would greatly bolster Iran's economy. It would give Iran thereby
tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the
Middle East.

Such a deal does not block Iran's path to the bomb.

Such a deal paves Iran's path to the bomb.

And
it might very well spark a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East
and it would greatly increase the risks of terrible war.

Now, some say that the only alternative to this bad deal is war.

That's not true.

There is a third alternative – standing firm, increasing the pressure on Iran until a good deal is achieved.

And finally let me say one more thing.

Iran is a regime that openly calls for Israel's destruction and openly and actively works towards that end.

Just
two days ago, in the midst of the negotiations in Lausanne, the
commander of the Basij security forces in Iran said this: "The
destruction of Israel is non-negotiable."

Well, I want to make clear to all. The survival of Israel is non-negotiable.

Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period.

In
addition, Israel demands that any final agreement with Iran will
include a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to
exist.

Head of the IDF Planning Directorate
Maj. Gen. Nimrod Sheffer tells Israel Hayom that "Israel will do
whatever is best for Israel" if it feels Iran threatens its existence,
even if it means defying the U.S. • "Any true partner would accept
that," he says.

Maj. Gen. Nimrod Sheffer

|

Photo credit: Ziv Koren

When asked whether he could feasibly envision a
situation in which Israel's air force bombs an Iranian nuclear facility
contrary to U.S. directives, Maj. Gen. Nimrod Sheffer told Israel Hayom
that "since it has happened in the past, I have no reason to believe it
won't happen again."

Sheffer, the head of the Israel Defense Forces
Planning Directorate, warned of the perils of the nuclear deal
currently being negotiated between Iran and key world powers. "The
agreement, the way it is coming together at this time, will not be good
for Israel. If ultimately an agreement is in fact signed, we will have
to ask ourselves, 'Okay, what are we going to do with this?' If someone
builds a bomb and at the same time declares that Israel has no right to
exist, we have to think about how to respond."

Asked whether Israel could take dramatic steps
in obvious defiance of the American position, Sheffer said that "when
it comes to our national security -- yes. Where Israel feels its
existence depends on action, we will take it."

"I think that any true partner would accept
that," he said. "Right now we have no partner in our efforts to prevent
Iran's nuclear ambitions. You asked me what Israel would do if it had to
do something about it, and my answer is that Israel would do whatever
is right for Israel."

"The Iranians are unequivocally playing a
game. They constantly ask themselves how they can make sure to achieve
nuclear weapons. I don't know if they will do it tomorrow or the next
day, but there is no doubt that the idea is to get their hands on
nuclear capability," he said.

When asked whether Tehran was lying when they
declared they did not seek nuclear weapons, Sheffer replied: "I think
that if you add one word it would complete the puzzle. Iran does not
seek nuclear weapons now. But a country that doesn't want any nuclear
capability can find other ways of producing nuclear energy for civilian
purposes. It abides by the rules -- all the inspection rules and all the
oversight rules. That is not the case with Iran."

There
is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other
governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what
can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present
rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches,
articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and
therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?

* * *

There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples. . Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights -- the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians -- but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent -- the threat of direct retaliation on Iran -- is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time -- Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, ofFrom Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East (Oxford University
Press, 2004).Source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115500154638829470 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Clinton’s use of her own personal server for her official State
Department electronic correspondence “has stopped the clock on
accountability,” Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia said during a Judicial Watch panel discussion.

Former
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will have to give evidence in
federal court because she clearly knew her surreptitious private email
scheme violated U.S. law, legal experts say.

The bungler of Benghazi deliberately sought to do an end-run around
the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) by establishing a private email
server to handle her government email while serving at Foggy Bottom,
they added.

Clinton’s use of her own personal server for her official State
Department electronic correspondence “has stopped the clock on
accountability,” Joseph diGenova, former U.S. Attorney for the District
of Columbia said during a Judicial Watch panel discussion.

“The basic facts cry out for a formal investigation by the Justice Department,” he said.

“Clinton is going to have to testify in a federal court,” said
diGenova. “She has admitted that she has destroyed, theoretically,
government documents under subpoena by the House of Representatives and
under subpoena in civil litigation.”

“There are going to have to be affidavits filed under oath” by many government officials, including Clinton, he said.

It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of Clinton’s bad
behavior in an office of such power and importance, DiGenova said.

“This is the secretary of state,” he said. “This is not somebody over
at EPA, who is working in a bureau, trying to figure out carbon dioxide
problems.”

“This is the secretary of state, a historical figure in terms of the
operations of the U.S. government,” said DiGenova. “For anybody that
cares about government—whether you are a Democrat or a Republican—she
destroyed history with no supervision, no accountability, no
supervision.”

Self-described liberal Democrat Daniel Metcalfe, who created the
Department of Justice’s office of information and privacy, said that the
system Clinton established was a “prescription for blatant
circumvention of FoIA.”

Clinton and her attorney, Cheryl Mills, must have been aware of what they were doing.“I know enough to know that Clinton indeed had knowledge of how the
FoIA worked,” Metcalfe said. “I worked with members of the White House,
including Cheryl Mills, and based on first-hand experience, she knew
exactly what she was doing.”

What Clinton did constituted a “flouting, if not an outright
violation” of the Federal Records Act, he said. “By not having an
official account at all, she acted utterly contrary to the FRA.”Clinton received preferential treatment, DiGenova said.

“Whatever the duties were of a whole bunch of people at the State
Department, they didn’t perform them,” he said. “At a certain point, the
information management people know that she is not using an official
email account … it doesn’t take a lot for somebody to start asking
questions.”

The attitude at State was that “you don’t get [Clinton] angry at you
by asking tough questions,” DiGenova said, adding that he believes
officials knew about the private server from the outset and helped
install it in her house in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Clinton went through all this trouble because she didn’t want her
performance in office to be an obstacle to her pursuit of the
presidency. Eliminating a trail of documents that might have an adverse
impact on her expected 2016 presidential run improves Clinton’s
electoral chances. Clinton has turned over thousands of emails from her
personal account to the Department of State in recent months but that
doesn’t change the fact that the records were not available to the
public the last six years by way of FoIA requests. The now-deleted trove
of electronic correspondence might contain evidence of Clinton’s
mishandling of the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S.
diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead.

There could be evidence that the donations that foreign governments
have been flooding the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation
with in recent years are in fact anticipatory bribes given in advance of
a second Clinton administration. The foundation itself serves as Mrs.
Clinton’s de facto campaign headquarters and employs individuals
likely to move over to her official campaign whenever she officially
declares herself a candidate for president.Conflicts of interest abound.

Mills, who was chief of staff to Clinton at the State Department,
“was listed as a director at the Clinton Foundation in its corporate
records for more than three years after joining the administration,
highlighting concerns that Clinton’s aides were too close to the
foundation during her tenure,” Alana Goodman of the Washington Free
Beacon discovered.
A foundation spokesman claims Mills’ inclusion on corporate filings was
a mistake but that is hard to believe because when Goodman’s article
was published Mills was still identified as a current member of the
foundation’s board on the Clinton Foundation’s website.

As Clinton’s public approval
ratings go into free-fall, Media Matters for America and other
Clinton-friendly groups are ramping up their defense of Hillary. At the
same time, some left-wingers are throwing Clinton under the bus.

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) diplomatically called
Clinton a liar, saying she does not believe Clinton’s claim that she
refrained from emailing classified material through her private account
and server.

“All of her official emails should be released to the American
people,” said Duckworth, an Iraq War veteran. “They should be able to
read them all. There are going to be some that are classified and those
that are classified—then show those to a bipartisan group of members of
Congress.”

Duckworth, who is running for the U.S. Senate seat now held by Sen.
Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), said she was “going to hold [Clinton] accountable.”
She said Clinton needs to testify before the Select Committee on
Benghazi, of which Duckworth is a member.

“By merging her records and deleting 30,000 of her emails, that
system basically routed around the goal of this transparency law,”
Melber said.

FoIA is an important law, he said. “Citizens can decide what matters
and if it matters, not the politicians. That’s just not a nice idea,
it’s the law.”

“The Freedom of Information Act wasn’t designed to be convenient,” Melber said. “It was designed to be thorough.”

And the Clinton sleaze parade continues unabated.

Michael Halle, who ran a political action committee that offered
access to longtime Clinton loyalist Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) in
exchange for money, has joined Hillary’s still-undeclared presidential campaign.

A solicitation used by the Good VA PAC indicated that a $100,000
contribution would buy the donor “a private dinner with the governor and
first lady, sit down at a roundtable discussion with the governor, and
have monthly meetings with policy experts.”Halle will fit right in at Team Hillary.

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book,
"Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and
Ripping Off American Taxpayers."Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/matthew-vadum/hillary-to-testify/ Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Mr. Obama is acting out of personal
aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon's
historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal
is about his place in history.

From Steven Emerson, Executive Director of the IPT:To our readers: We do not often reprint other newspaper editorials, but I felt that the commentary below which ran Tuesday in The Observer
encapsulated the essence of what may ultimately become the most
dangerous deal since the appeasement of Hitler in 1939. Given the sudden
flurry of contradictory and get-tough statements made in the last 36
hours, no one can be 100 percent certain that a final deal will be made.On the other hand, as the editorial points out, President Obama's
"obsession" with negotiating an agreement with Iran has resulted in his
making such irreversible concessions that Iran will find it impossible
to refuse to come to terms. Yet it is those very concessions that lie at
the heart of the matter. Because the president seem blind to the
collateral damage of such a deal that would threaten the very survival of Israel and the very security of the West itself.

The following originally was published Tuesday by the Observer:
With the US on the brink of signing an agreement that will lift the
crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for alleged guarantees
that Iran will limit its nuclear ambitions to peaceful means, the
Observer urges President Obama not to place his personal hunger for a
legacy issue ahead of his most solemn duty – protecting America's
national security.

Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain , who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in
1938. But Chamberlain acted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding
a greater evil. Chamberlain was not thinking of his place in history.
He was thinking only of the Britain that he loved, a Britain that was
all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a
nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose "best
and brightest" five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford
Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that
was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight.
Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, one that Hitler
continually exploited in the negotiations, even by changing the time and
place to make it more inconvenient for the British leader to attend
them.

In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal
aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon's
historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal
is about his place in history. Mr. Obama is dealing from a position of
strength that he refuses to use. The sanctions have hurt Iran. Falling
oil prices only add to Iran's vulnerability. Instead of using the
sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the
bomb, Mr. Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb
immediately. It would be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5
percent need for generating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout
capacity to create a bomb.

Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any
such agreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the
enrichment plant at Fordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran
continues to showcase public displays of Israel being obliterated by an
Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in the midst of negotiations
government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, "Death to America."
If Chamberlain possessed America's strength and was dealing with
Iran's weakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be
more concerned about a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than
an Iranian building a bomb at Fordo?

Before becoming prime minister, Chamberlain held two ministerial
portfolios. He was considered a thoughtful and effective cabinet member.
Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1940, Winston Churchill appointed
Chamberlain to the new War Cabinet.

History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser
that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of
extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against
and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm.
Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous "choice between
war and dishonor and now will get both" zinger, understood that
Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor
in his War cabinet.

It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern
Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But
even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr.
Obama seems so eager to conclude.

Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own
voice and is incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his
actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a
media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated
foreign policy disasters. As country after country in the world's most
dangerous region fall into chaos—Libya and Yemen are essentially
anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve—Mr. Obama
puzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel,
childishly refusing to accept the mandate its people have given their
prime minister in an election that, by the way, added three additional
seats to the country's Arab minority.

We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr.
Obama's hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the
power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over
the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a
vacuum filled by the Islamic State.

In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for
thirty years kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable
and reliable ally. Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to
come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting
in a tyranny is not democracy.

In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah,
had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the
community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a
stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and
diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of
pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When
revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only
verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to
assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos
and another hot house for Islamic extremism.

The deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy
disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen
as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran's nuclear ambitions
but also because it encourages Iran's support for the Houthi Shiite
militia in Yemen and Iran's adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of
sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome
proxies like Lebanon's Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon's democratic
aspirations. The nuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear
umbrella that will compel the Gulf State Sunnis to launch their own
nuclear programs, setting off a disastrous proliferation in the region.

The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with
the world's largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah,
Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives
killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President
Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand
in his way.

Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israel's
nuclear program, we believed that the president's Iranian policy was
motivated by a different vision of America's interests in the Middle
East. Admittedly, it is one that would be difficult to dissect, let
alone to explain.

But Mr. Obama's latest petulant act shows that this is not a
president motivated by policy but by personal feelings. He sacrificed
the security of our close ally and its seven million citizens because he
felt slighted. How else does one explain that Israel's nuclear program
is made public while the report's description of the programs of our
NATO partners is redacted?

We might call for Mr. Obama to find his inner Churchill and walk away
from this tragedy, but we would be happy if he would simply find the
character of the "real" Neville Chamberlain, who when dealing from a
position of America's strength would never have signed a deal with the
devil. Ultimately, this deal will come back to haunt Mr. Obama's legacy
far more than Munich haunted Chamberlain's.

Obama is
seeking to further his long-term objective of forcing Israel to withdraw
to the indefensible pre-1967 borders and create a Palestinian state --
which would remain committed to destroying Israel. Should the U.S.
follow through on its threat to withhold its veto power at the U.N.,
Israel will have to confront a severe diplomatic crisis and may
ultimately face sanctions. France has already announced that it will
soon submit a resolution along these lines to the Security Council.

It is ironic that as we
prepare to celebrate Passover, the festival of freedom, we are facing
vicious efforts by the vindictive leader of the United States, our
greatest ally, who is abandoning us -- the only democratic state in a
region suffused with barbarism.

Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is obliged to respond diplomatically to the outrageous
provocations directed against him by U.S. President Barack Obama. But
we, Israel's citizens, must rise above political correctness and come to
terms with an unpleasant reality.

The president of the
United States, the leader of the free world and of Western civilization,
is not merely venting his personal frustration against Netanyahu or
throwing temper tantrums over the Israeli public's decision to re-elect
him. Obama himself stresses that he is motivated by ideological reasons
that can be traced back to the Cairo speech he delivered after his first
election victory.

He has escalated his hostility toward Israel while simultaneously endearing himself and even groveling to Iran.

Indeed, addressing a
recent J Street Conference, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough
even employed Palestinian clichés insisting that "an occupation that has
lasted for almost 50 years must end" -- without any reference to the
fact that two Israeli prime ministers had been spurned by Palestinian
leaders Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas when they offered them 95% of
the formerly Jordanian-occupied territories.

The personal attacks
accusing Netanyahu of being a racist and a liar are also being cynically
used by Obama as a pretext to pursue two objectives. First, the
president is seeking to neutralize Israel as he finalizes the nuclear
deal with the Iranian mullahs. It is noteworthy that former CIA Director
David Petraeus has now virtually echoed Netanyahu's critical remarks
about U.S. policy in public.

Second, Obama is
seeking to further his long-term objective of forcing Israel to withdraw
to the indefensible pre-1967 borders and create a Palestinian state --
which would remain committed to destroying Israel. Should the U.S.
follow through on its threat to withhold its veto power at the U.N.,
Israel will have to confront a severe diplomatic crisis and may
ultimately face sanctions. France has already announced that it will
soon submit a resolution along these lines to the Security Council.

At such a time, we must
stand united to resist the pressure from Obama and the Europeans to
make further unilateral concessions, which would represent a long-term
existential threat.

This will require
Israeli politicians to change their approach and prioritize the national
interest ahead of their own ambitions and egocentricities.

It starts with
President Reuven Rivlin, who, while initially endearing himself to the
nation as a man of the people, seems to have lost perspective. His role
is to be a facilitator and an apolitical symbol of the state, not to
instruct Netanyahu on the composition of the government he should
create.

And it is unbecoming
for him to tell the incoming prime minister to repair relations with the
U.S. administration -- as though Netanyahu was responsible for the
tension. Rivlin also provides fuel for our adversaries when he continues
criticizing his prime minister over a single inappropriately worded
sentence relating to the Arab bloc expressed during the heat of an
election, which Netanyahu subsequently clarified and apologized for --
all the more so when the Americans challenge his sincerity and actually
call him a liar.

Moreover, much as we
admire our president's liberal tendencies, he surely seemed to have lost
his bearings when he sent a letter of support to J Street, an American
Jewish group condemned by his government that is now calling on Obama to
punish Israel, encouraging the boycott of settlement products and
providing a platform for supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and
Sanction movement.

Rivlin must behave
apolitically and eschew controversial political statements that
undermine the government's standing on the international level.

Netanyahu is now
pursuing the daunting task of forming a coalition, while all the smaller
parties are engaging in the traditional horse trading, primarily
seeking to promote themselves without any regard to the country's
national interests. For example, most Israelis are angered that a
convicted felon will probably be appointed to head a key ministry (Shas
Chairman Aryeh Deri was convicted of multiple corruption charges in
2000), but there is nothing they can do about it.

It is difficult to
comprehend the conduct of Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Naftali Bennett, who
is demanding the Foreign Affairs or Defense portfolio. His
annexationist policies are hardly suited to the position of Israel's
foreign minister, and Moshe Ya'alon has proven his mettle as defense
minister and should not be replaced. Bennett should have immediately
accepted the education portfolio, which should be the most important
ministry for his party, enabling it to promote the Jewish values for
which his voters cast their ballots.

But most disconcerting
is that Netanyahu may reappoint Avigdor Lieberman to be Israel's foreign
minister. Lieberman is no fool, but he is arguably Israel's worst ever
foreign minister, having decimated the ministry. As foreign minister, in
the midst of the Gaza conflict, he publicly castigated his government's
conduct instead of defending Israel in the global arena. He is shunned
by many world leaders, and his coarse and primitive remarks about
"beheading" Palestinian extremists portrayed Israel in the worst light.

Over the next year,
Israel must marshal the very best people to promote our case and refute
the lies, not only from our traditional enemies but, alas, also from the
Obama administration. A foreign minister is the public face of a nation
whose principal role is to present his country's policies in the most
positive light. It would be unconscionable for Netanyahu to reinstate
Lieberman to this position.

The reality, painful
though it is to many Israelis from both sides of the political spectrum,
is it would now be in the national interest to form a broad unity
government.

There is absolutely no
possibility of meaningful negotiations with the Palestinian Authority
while it is cozying up to Hamas and intensifying the level of incitement
to unprecedented levels. Even if the duplicitous Abbas were to change
his tune, he could not make a single compromise without enraging his own
constituents.

Besides, with the
Americans shamelessly employing Palestinian rhetoric to defame Israel,
pressuring it to accept indefensible borders and threatening to give the
green light to the U.N. to condemn and ultimately sanction Israel, the
Palestinians have no incentive to engage in meaningful negotiations.

Under such
circumstances, the policy differences between Likud and Zionist Union
are not significant. In terms of Iran, the Zionist Union, no less than
Likud, is bitterly opposed to Obama's capitulation to the Iranian
mullahs.

A unity government
would deny the smaller parties the opportunity of extorting to promote
their own sectarian interests. It would provide the opportunity for the
two dominant parties to implement electoral reforms to our current
dysfunctional political system.

Above all, a
demonstration of unity would immensely enhance our global standing. It
would encourage Jews throughout the world, in particular in the United
States, to rally behind the Jewish state. It would overcome, or at least
stem, the hostility of the left-wing Democratic elements in Congress
and strengthen bipartisanship, making it extremely difficult for Obama
to continue his current reckless campaign to force us to our knees.

There would be intense
opposition to such a union from the more radical elements in both
parties, but the majority of Israelis would welcome such a government,
which would dramatically weaken the anti-Israeli hysteria generated by
the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of a national unity government is extremely slim.

That being the case, we should at least expect the opposition to act responsibly.

Had Isaac Herzog been
elected, Obama would certainly have been happy to see the political
demise of Netanyahu, but would still have pursued the same objectives.
Herzog is a Zionist and we can hope that he will now rise above petty
politics, stand up against the post-Zionist elements in his party, and
pledge his support to Netanyahu when Obama makes unreasonable demands or
pursues a vendetta rather than seeking a solution. Likewise, he should
be unequivocal in his support of Netanyahu's efforts to block a
catastrophic deal with Iran that may have existential implications for
Israel. Herzog would gain enormous respect and support from the nation
and gain new followers were he to act in this manner.

When contemplating the
barbarians at our gates and the betrayal of Israel by much of the
Western world, we should take comfort when we recite the verse in the
Haggadah during the Passover Seder that in every generation enemies will
emerge seeking to destroy the Jewish people, but with the help of the
Almighty we have, and will continue to, overcome them.

In
summary, if the West wants to end the conflict, it should resettle the
"refugees" and absorb 2 million Palestinians. It’s that easy.

Instead,
Ross and Makovsky prefer to demand Israel accept the deal that they
have pre-ordained, at their peril, which Israel isn't about to do.

Dennis Ross and David Makovsky in Israel’s Drive Toward Self-Destruction,
argue that Prime Minister Netanyahu must offer up hope to Palestinians
or face a revived de-legitimization movement. They’re certainly right to
point out that the delegitimation movement will grow, but they are
wrong to suggest that the answer is for Israel to offer hope to the
Palestinians. How facile is that? They argue that what Israel needs to
do is begin capitulating even before the negotiations commence, let
alone, conclude. They want Israel to give up its bargaining chips for
nothing in return.

The Palestinians don’t hope to be given a state, they hope to destroy a state, namely Israel.It’s not Israel that needs to prove its bona fides, it’s the Palestinians that need to.

The problem with the Ross/Makovsky recommendations
is that they are put forward to achieve a pre-ordained (at least by the
international community) solution, namely two states for two people
based on the '67 lines plus swaps, a divided Jerusalem and "just
solution" for the Palestinian refugees, of which there are few
(60,000), and their descendants.

And
the recommendations ignores the many threats to Israel along its
borders. Ross and Makovsky assume that these threats will eventually
evaporate but offer no arguments why this will be so. Yet they want
Israel to put herself in jeopardy by offering “hope.” The greatest of
these threats, Iran, is now becoming greater due to the deal being
negotiated by the Obama administration that will, in Netanyahu’s words,
pave the way to them getting the bomb.

The
commander of the Basij militia of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that
“erasing Israel off the map” is ‘nonnegotiable,’ according to an Israel
Radio report Tuesday.In
2014, Naqdi said Iran was stepping up efforts to arm West Bank
Palestinians for battle against Israel, adding the move would lead to
Israel’s annihilation, Iran’s Fars news agency reported.’Arming the West Bank has started and weapons will be supplied to the people of this region,’ Naqdi said.’The
Zionists should know that the next war won’t be confined to the present
borders and the Mujahedeen will push them back,’ he added. Naqdi
claimed that much of Hamas’s arsenal, training and technical knowhow in
the summer conflict with Israel was supplied by Iran.

There
is a major war looming, aided and abetted by the Obama administration,
yet Ross and Makovsky ignore Israel’s reality and peril.

Army updates estimates for damages in possible northern war, expects dozens or hundreds of lives lost per day.IDF
experts estimate that the number of missiles to hit northern Israel on a
given day would be 1,000-1,500, and the number of people killed daily
will be in double or even triple digits.

Of
course President Obama’s new bedmate, Iran, is responsible for
providing Hezb’allah with an enormous arsenal of rockets, reputed to
exceed 60,000, with which to wreak havoc on Israel. Ross and Makovsky
make no mention of this threat.

Furthermore,
the international community is responsible for the lack of a solution
because it keeps supporting the weaker side. Normally, a labor dispute
in which the workers have stuck is settled when one side decides to
compromise their demands because of economic necessity. In the "peace
process" the Palestinians are supported at every turn, both politically
and financially, and are held blameless. So they have no reason or
necessity to compromise.

This
support has thwarted the intent of the Oslo Accords. Former PM Rabin
once said that the Palestinians would have to bend to the will of Israel
because Israel is the stronger party and holds all the cards or
something to that effect. What he did not factor in was that the
international community would bolster the Palestinians, making a
settlement impossible.

So
my first recommendation would be to set aside the pre-ordained
solution. Instead, let the only parameter be UN Security Council Resolution 242.

Secondly leave the parties to their own devices. Stop supporting the Palestinians financially or politically.

Thirdly, UN Works and Relief Administration (UNWRA) should be done away with and all so called refugees should be resettled like all refugees are resettled. UN General Assembly Resolution 393 provides for this.

"4.
Considers that, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 11 of
General Assembly resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, the
reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of the Near East,
either by repatriation or resettlement, is essential in preparation for
the time when international assistance is no longer available, and for
the realization of conditions of peace and stability in the area

Thus
it recommends "reintegration of the refugees into the economic life of
the Near East either by repatriation or resettlement". There is no
reason why these "refugees" can't also be resettled throughout the world
just as the Syrian refugees are being resettled. Or just normalize them
where they are by giving them citizenship. If the host countries refuse
to do this then they must be resettled in countries that will. It
would help considerably if the standard definition of what a refugee is
be applied rather than to consider their descendants as refugees also.

I
should point out that the "right of return" derives from Resolution
194, which, like all UN General Assembly resolutions, is a
recommendation only.

The
world community, by maintaining the refugee status of these people, is
contributing to the impasse in the "peace process". By maintaining
the "right of return" they are adding to the unsolvables.

Fourthly,
support the emigration of Palestinians from Judea and Samaria and from
Gaza, (rather than rebuilding Gaza). There are currently about 3.5
million Arabs living there. If the world would absorb 2 million of them,
Israel would extend its sovereignty over these lands and offer
citizenship or autonomy to the remaining Arabs. Thus the conflict would
be over.

In
summary, if the West wants to end the conflict, it should resettle the
"refugees" and absorb 2 million Palestinians. It’s that easy.

Instead,
Ross and Makovsky prefer to demand Israel accept the deal that they
have pre-ordained, at their peril, which Israel isn't about to do.

Ironically,
just as President Obama is reconsidering his options on how to impose a
solution, support for a “two-state solution” to solve the Israel-Arab
conflict is less popular in the United States than it has been in at
least two decades, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

[SJP denies] the Jewish people — and only the Jewish people — their
right to self-determination, they demand that Israel be judged by
standards not applied to any other nation, they deploy classic
anti-Semitic imagery, they propagate the idea that Israel exists on land
stolen from the Arabs, and they demonize Israel as an apartheid state.

Today we are witnessing a resurgence of global Jew hatred not seen
since the 1930s when Hitler was laying plans for the “Final Solution” —
the physical extermination of European Jewry. In the Middle East,
Hitler-admiring leaders in Iran and parties such as Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood are openly planning to finish the job Hitler started. And
in America, on campuses across the country, student groups explicitly
echo the poisonous messages of these Jew-hating parties that hold events
calling for the destruction of the Jewish state — the unmistakable
meaning of their signature chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine
will be free,” because the river is the eastern boundary of Israel and
the sea its western boundary.

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may
be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical
manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish
individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions
and religious facilities.”

They deny the Jewish people — and only the Jewish people — their
right to self-determination, they demand that Israel be judged by
standards not applied to any other nation, they deploy classic
anti-Semitic imagery, they propagate the idea that Israel exists on land
stolen from the Arabs, and they demonize Israel as an apartheid state.

In a letter
to The Daily Californian published March 20, members of SJP claim to
have been persecuted by a poster campaign I organized to highlight its
anti-Semitic and anti-Palestinian activities. One poster, for example,
featured two Hamas terrorists about to execute a Palestinian for alleged
collaboration with the Jews. The SJP letter goes on to describe its
“protests,” which I believe clearly express a genocidal goal: the
elimination of the Jewish state. It complains that the Daily Cal editors
refused to print a passage in the SJP members’ original submission
because it was “libelous and unverifiable,” which it clearly was. As
quoted in their letter, “The (SJP) flyers called attention to the real
eviction notices Palestinians in the Occupied Territories receive from
the Israeli military as part of the Israeli government’s policy of
expelling Palestinians from their land in order to build
ethnically-exclusive settlements, an ongoing project of ethnic cleansing that has seen some 27,000 Palestinian homes demolished since 1967.”

These SJP claims misrepresent the situation. Since its creation,
Israel has been home to more than 1 million Arabs who, as Israeli
citizens, sit on Israel’s Supreme Court, are members of its Knesset and
enjoy more rights than the Palestinians living in the West Bank and the
Gaza Strip. Of the two parties that seek to represent Palestinians, one
is a terrorist group sworn to eliminate the Jewish state. It is SJP that
supports ethnic cleansing, not Israel.

Nor does Israel “occupy” any Arab land. Israel was created the same
way Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were created — out of the ruins of
the Turkish empire, which ruled the area for 400 years before the
countries’ creation. Native Americans have a greater claim to the United
States than Arabs do to either Israel or Gaza and the West Bank. More
to the point, there appear to be no Hamas, Fatah or SJP protests against
the Hashemite rulers of Jordan, whose oppressed majority population is
Palestinian. That is because the goal of the Palestinian movement, as
led by terrorists, is not the liberation of Palestine but the
destruction of the Jews.

The 70-year Arab war against the state of Israel is racist to its
core. There is no peace in the Middle East because it is impossible to
negotiate peace with people who want to eliminate you. The actions of
SJP make it a supporter and active abettor of a war against the Jews.
(The fact that some obtuse Jews are unable to recognize this and are
members of SJP does not mitigate its truth.)

SJP is responsible for the atmosphere of fear that is a palpable
reality for many Jewish students. As such, SJP clearly violates UC
Berkeley’s “Principles of Community,” under which officially recognized
student groups are supposed to operate. Under the U.S. Constitution, SJP
has every right to spew its noxious hatreds and spread its lies. It
does not have rights, however, to the privileges of legitimate student
groups or to funding from the campus and taxpayers of California. This
is an outrage that needs to be addressed by UC Berkeley’s Division of
Student Affairs, and the sooner the better.David Horowitz
was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of
its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of
three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation
(1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has
been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works
documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject
more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey
from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder
described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” He is
author of the newly published book The Great Betrayal
(Regnery 2014), which is a chronicle of the Democrats treachery in the
war on terror before 9/11 to the death of Osama bin Laden.

Talk is cheap, but meaningless in the Middle East. Look at what they do, not at what they say.

Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from the Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky

Analysis of the events that occurred over the last few years in the
Middle East, shows that the most powerful, central and influential
component of these events is not a verbal one – not speeches, promises,
documents and agreements. What counts are actions on the ground and the
accompanying threats of violence.

There is no dearth of examples that prove this rule:

Egypt
is the most obvious. In June 2012, Mohamed Morsi was elected to the
presidency, in the first ever democratic elections held in Egypt. A
little over a year later, in July 2013, Defense Minister Abd el Fatah
al-Sisi arose and deposed Morsi. The world erupted, Obama reached the
boiling point, and the USA froze its military aid to Egypt. Everyone
demanded that Sisi put Morsi back in office, but he refused. Then Sisi
held democratic elections and won. This week – twenty months after Morsi
was deposed – Obama finally realized that his dream of bringing about
Muslim Brotherhood hegemony over the entire Middle East has to be put on
hold. He phoned Sisi and told him that the US will renew military aid
to Egypt. Sisi's stubbornness paid off in a big way, and the Egyptian
general succeeded in forcing his agenda on the President of the United
States.

Another
example is Assad, the mass-murdering despot who has killed tens of
thousands of Syrian citizens over the past four years while the world
observed the carnage and did nothing. When he crossed the most red of
lines and used chemical weapons against his own people, the lines seemed
to turn pink, then white and then became transparent before our very
eyes.

The world condemns, the UN Security Council adopts
meaningless decisions, but Assad's continued bestial behavior is the
only reason he still rules part of Syria. His actions speak louder than
all the words uttered by the world and its leaders.

Hezbollah
is a terrorist organization armed with tens of thousands of missiles,
found guilty of the murder of Lebanon's previous prime minister, Rafik
al Hariri. The UN Security Council forbade the organization's rearming
after the Second Lebanon War, but these words did not stop it from
rearming. Moreover, Europe has been cooperating with the "civilian arm"
of this terrorist entity that also took over Lebanon. In other words,
what the world says doesn't matter, but what Hezbollah achieves, does.
Does the fact that Hezbollah's militants murder Syrian citizens bother
anyone enough to do something? It seems the world realizes that words
will not change this reality.

Iran has been moving towards
acquiring nuclear weapons for years, a game changer for regional and
world politics. The entire world is talking about it, speeches are made,
documents are written, papers are published, agreements are signed -
but all the billions of words spilled worldwide on the subject have not
brought Iran to stop its nuclear plans for one minute. Only the West's
2003 invasion of Iraq resulted in Iran's stopping the development of its
nuclear project for a while. Iran went back to nuclear activity in 2006
when it realized that no one planned to invade its territory, despite
all the evidence of Iranian involvement in the Iraqi uprising, and
despite the incontrovertible fact that Iran - indirectly, but
intentionally - caused the deaths of thousands of American and other
soldiers in Iraq up to 2010. What affects Iranian behavior is not what
is said about the country, but what is done - or not done - against
the Iranian regime.

Economic sanctions can influence Iranian
policy on nuclear power, because sanctions are a practical, and
therefore effective, step, but someone in the White House and the US
State Department has decided that it is better to substitute words for
actions. In the Middle East, words are meaningless. The Iranians are
ready to offer pleasant words, smiles and agreements, but their actions
are the exact opposite of what they promise - and it is actions that
count.

Iran is bound by the decision of the UN Security Council
that forbids it from exporting weapons, but do these written words keep
the Ayatollahs from exporting arms to Syria? to Hezbollah in Lebanon?
to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza? to the Shiite militias in Iraq? to
the Kurds in northern Iraq? to Assad's regime in Syria? to the Houthis
in Yemen? The words are on paper, but Iran's actions are the reality.

Iran
has been arming itself for years, it has been funding and training the
Shiite Houthis in Yemen, whose battle for control of Yemen began
with attacks on Sa'dah in northern Yemen back in 2004. The Houthis
gained in strength until they took over the capital city of
Sa'ana several months ago and turned Yemen into a bloodbath. All the
talk in Yemen about national unity as well as all the talk about
dividing the country into autonomous sectors were of no avail, as the
Houthis continued their relentless advance.

Houthi actions are
more significant than any decision and any document. This is what pushed
Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Sunni states to prepare for a real war,
not a war of words, against the Houthis, whom they rightly see as the
Yemenite tentacle of the Iranian octopus.

Yemen is also a stage
on which al Qaeda, the organization that the entire world is against,
plays a role, growing, advancing and gaining control over more and more
territory. It has reached the point where its offshoot, Islamic State,
established as an al Qaeda branch in Iraq in 2004, has wrested control
over a third of Syria, a third of Iraq - and has the whole world living
in fear of its Jihadist knives and the possibility of its revolution
being exported to Europe, America, Australia and who-knows-where else.
Jihadist actions have much more effect than the condemnations voiced
against them, much more than the decisions, articles and
caricatures aimed at them.

In Gaza, the Palestinian Authority is
officially in charge - on paper - but the real control is in the hands
of the Islamic terrorist organization, Hamas. How many words have been
wasted talking about this insane situation? How may agreements have been
signed by both sides? Nothing can affect the reality in which Hamas
rules by force in Gaza, effectively telling the PA to go to hell. Even
Israel has not succeeded in changing the facts on the ground there.

Israel,
too, is in possession of many promises on crucial issues from various
American presidents. These include stopping the Iranian nuclear project,
support for Israel's suggestion to retain settlement blocs in Judea and
Samaria, and for its opposition to the recognition of a Palestinian
state in the Security Council. All these were simply words. What is
happening to the assurances and all the words Israel has received? Iran
continues its nuclear project - and will be doing so after signing any
agreement - and America is establishing a Palestinian State in Judea
and Samaria even though no one in Washington can be sure or can promise
that it won't turn into a Hamas state.

Israel must draw a clear
and sharp conclusion: stop talking and start doing what should be done.
It must put an end to the Palestinian Authority before it turns into
another Hamas state and establish eight Emirates on its ruins: the one
in Gaza has been in existence for eight years,but another seven must be
established in Arab cities in Judea and Samaria - in Jenin, Shechem,
Tulkarem, Kalkilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Arab areas of Hevron - ruled by
local hamoulot (powerful, extended families), while Israel remains a force in the countryside with all its Jewish "settlements" intact.

Israel
has to learn from Sisi, the man who succeeded in forcing the correct
course of action on America, Europe and all those who opposed him. Only
actions have an effect on reality in the Middle East, and for everyone
who has a short memory: Israel, too, was established when the Jewish
People got sick and tired of words and began to act.

In our
neighborhood, we don't talk. We act. Those who talk usually don't do
anything and have no desire to do anything, hoping that their words will
cover up for their lack of action. Israel's new government must work
together on a practical plan, not one that is all verbiage and
"agreements" - and start acting to put facts on the ground. In the long
run, the world accepts Middle East reality, even unpleasant reality,
because that is how this region operates.

Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from the Hebrew by Rochel SylvetskyDr. Mordechai KedarSource: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16722#.VR0p7uGzd-8 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

On April 1, 2015, four months after it joined the Rome Statute,
the Palestinian Authority (PA) officially became a member of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. The practical
consequence of this move is that the PA can now bring charges against
Israelis for alleged war crimes. PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said
that the court has already launched a preliminary investigation
regarding the settlements and regarding war crimes perpetrated during
the 2014 Gaza conflict.[1]The PLO called the PA's accession to the ICC "historic," and PA
Foreign Minister Riyadh Al-Maliki said that "Palestine seeks justice,
not revenge."[2]In an article published in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat in
November 2014, before the PA submitted a formal request to join the
ICC, Lebanese journalist Huda Al-Husseini warned about the potential
consequences of this move for the Palestinians themselves, as well as
for Qatar and Turkey, due to their ties with the Hamas movement and its
leadership. Al-Husseini wrote that accession to the ICC could result in a
series of charges against Palestinian figures, and also expose Qatar
and Turkey to grave accusations of funding terror and even of committing
crimes against humanity. The following are excerpts from her article:[3]

Huda Al-Husseini (image: Alarabiya.net)

Palestinians' Accession To ICC Could Expose Them To Series Of War Crimes Charges

"The PA has threatened that, if the Security Council rejects its
draft resolution on the establishment of an independent Palestinian
state, it will join the International Criminal Court. It did this
knowing that experts on international law question the effectiveness of
this move... [True,] appealing to the ICC may be the last weapon left to
the Palestinians [in their bid] to turn the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict into a global cause. However, it is possible that the
Palestinians have not considered the implications of this option. PA
Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki [himself] said in an interview on the
Al-Arabiya Al-Hadath [TV channel] in July [2014] that joining the ICC
would be a double-edged sword, since it could lead to an investigation
into war crimes committed by Hamas. Former ICC prosecutor Luis
Moreno-Ocampo said on May 9, [2014] that 'the Palestinians understand
that joining the ICC will expose them as well to prosecution.' According
to experts on international law, the PA's move, [intended] to enlist
global support, could trigger a domino effect, namely a series of
counter-charges in the Hague, which could drastically reduce the scope
of support the PA receives. The PA and Hamas, who, along with the rest
of the Palestinian factions, support the [move of] joining the Rome
Statute, may find themselves facing charges against them. The circle of
accused parties may even include senior officials from Qatar, Turkey and
other countries, who may be charged with committing crimes against
humanity."

Charges Against Hamas Could Jeopardize Qatar And Turkey, Who Take Part In Funding This Movement

"Recently many people have been writing about Qatar and Turkey's
direct and indirect support of Hamas. Both countries are hosting Hamas
leaders: [Hamas political bureau head] Khaled Mash'al is in Doha and
[Hamas official] Saleh Al-'Arouri is in Ankara. In addition, both
[countries] are surely aware of the general trend in international
criminal law which broadens the scope of 'aiding and abetting' to
include elements who take part in activity that can be defined as
criminal.

"Legal studies indicate that the Palestinians can create a problem
for the elements that aid them. How? Qatar and Turkey are known to be
among Hamas' direct sources of funding. Both have secretly supplied the
organization with tens of millions of dollars every year, which served
for various purposes. Fatah spokesman Ahmad 'Assaf said in a September
16, 2014 interview on Al-Awda TV that the Hamas leadership in Gaza had
received hundreds of millions of dollars for a campaign [to help]
children, the elderly and martyrs' [families]. However, according to
'Assaf, the funds never reached their destination, and he wondered where
they had gone. An ICC investigation of Qatar and Turkey may [also]
address allegations regarding their funding of global jihad
organizations that are accused of terrorism, such as ISIS and Jabhat
Al-Nusra.

"In recent months there have been reports that Hamas flew funds from
Qatar to Turkey, and then transferred tens of millions through
[Turkish] money changers. [In this case,] the Turkish government helped
by turning a blind eye. This intensive activity is likely to trigger a
request for the ICC to investigate the actions of Palestinians living in
[Qatar and Turkey], and [it should be borne in mind that] the court's
legal tools include the possibility of imposing sanctions. Charges may
also be brought against the banks and financial institutions in Qatar
and Turkey where this activity took place. All this is a result of
broadening of the concept of 'aiding and abetting' to include financial
support.

The ICC is likely to act against Hamas officials living in Qatar,
Turkey or elsewhere, investigate their military and financial activity,
and summon them to appear before it. This [activity] may even include
Khaled Mash'al, who was in Qatar during the recent Gaza war. Such an
investigation will turn the spotlight on Qatar, which prefers to be in
the spotlight of investments and financial success. It may be pressured
to prosecute Mash'al and others, or to designate them fugitives from
justice.

"The ICC prosecutor-general does not have the authority to prosecute
citizens of countries that are not party to the Rome Statute and are
therefore not members of the ICC. Qatar, Turkey and the other Arab
states are not members of the ICC, but if the PA joins it, the
prosecutor-general will be able to investigate Palestinians who live or
act in these countries. This means that the ICC will address [issues]
pertaining to countries that host Palestinians involved in 'terror'
activity – and this may have political, financial and legal
implications. If the ICC addresses issues of terrorism and its funding,
this will intensify the general global debate regarding the funding [of
terrorism]. This could lead to further investigations, which could yield
even more investigations, and so on. Moreover, states that are members
of the ICC and of [other] international organizations, especially those
linked to the UN, could have difficulty maintaining normal relations
with countries hosting individuals wanted by the ICC, especially when
there are guidelines by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon regarding this
issue..." Endnotes: